England vs New Zealand - 15/11/2025

[Which Tyler]

Nobody has said anything that I feel is utter rubbish.

I take it no-one's raised the Ford to SH speculation then?

 

[Geordie]

I take it no-one's raised the Ford to SH speculation then?

Apparently Ford played really well there in training.

Is it a far out thing that they have players training in different positions in case of injury etc? This then allows the multitude of options on the bench.

People point to SA as being the absolute pinnacle of rugby these days...and SA have players playing in different roles out of position all over the park. Back rowers covering hooker, wingers covering Fh etc etc

But England are criticized when they look at things the same way.

Curious.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

People point to SA as being the absolute pinnacle of rugby these days

Absolute pinnacle...of being boring ********

 

[Geordie]

Absolute pinnacle...of being boring ********

And brutally efficient and winning.

 

[Saintjay]

No issue with hybrid players if there good enough to do it.

More of an issue when it's because your selections and bench split is wrong. Your following everyone else and it's the trend in rugby. Reproducing others tactics rather than innovating your own.

 

[Scotty]

1. Ethan de Groot
2. Codie Taylor
3. Fletcher Newell
4. Scott Barrett
5. Fabian Holland
6. Simon Parker
7. Ardie Savea
8. Peter Lakai
9. Cam Roigard
10. Beauden Barrett
11. Leicester Fainga'anuku
12. Quinn Tupaea
13. Billy Proctor
14. Leroy Carter
15. Will Jordan

Reserves

16. Samisoni Taukei'aho
17. Tamaiti Williams
18. Pasilio Tosi
19. Josh Lord
20. Wallace Sititi
21. Cortez Ratima
22. Anton Lienert-Brown
23. Damian McKenzie

 

[Which Tyler]

Apparently Ford played really well there in training.

Is it a far out thing that they have players training in different positions in case of injury etc? This then allows the multitude of options on the bench.

As he has been for at least 6 years (may be closer to 10).

Not remotely, in fact, it's to be expected, and entirely un-newsworthy.

But there's a hge difference between training in a position to cover an injury, yellow card, or simply noticing that the SH is stuck at the bottom of a ruck, than starting them there in an international (see also Earl at centre, Steward at IC etc etc).

I've long been a fan of French-style SH/FH combinations, and have said with reasonable frequency that Ford (and Marcus Smith, and Kyle Eastmond, and Ryan Lamb, and...) could have been excellent at that - had they been playing SH from U16s. SH is probably the most instinctive position on the pitch, and needs to be grooved with lots of game time there.
The SH/FH combos are essentially all SHs who learned FH play play, or have been playing both from a very young age. I can't think of a single FH who then learnt SH play to the standard of starting a PRC-level match there during an injury crisis.

But England are criticized when they look at things the same way.

Curious.

Really not.

I'm criticising press and fans going from "Ford trained at SH for one session" and going straight to "Ford is expected to start at SH for England"
And I criticise England for STARTING a test match with players in a position that they haven't played enough to properly find their groove there - when it means leaving out a different player who would be a better option in that position (eg dropping Lawrence or Furbank in order to allow Freeman or MSmith to START a test match in a position they've barely played in before) - because that experimentation should be coming at club level, or as part of position shuffling when the bench comes on - until such point in time that the player has played that position enough to be considered "grooved" there.

None of which is a criticism of running training scenarios, or even complete sessions, with players out of their comfort zones.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

It's one of those weird matches, where I think nearly everyone's raised valid points. In both positive and negative comments. Nobody has said anything that I feel is utter rubbish.

I sit firmly in the Borthwick is risk adverse camp. All the usual clichés about staying in the 'arm wrestle' being in the 'fight' in the last twenty. Nick it at the death. Recent matches have been that way and I think that is how SB sees it. It's probably the right call, so fingers crossed for Saturday.

I think SB is explicitly looking to do exactly that - be in it with 25 to go and then ask the Pom Squad to seal the deal.

It’s totally counter intuitive to have some of your best players only on the pitch for around a third of the game, and if you do pile them all on by 55 then you’ve got issues if injuries subsequently happen.

 

[spartan32]

I think SB is explicitly looking to do exactly that - be in it with 25 to go and then ask the Pom Squad to seal the deal.

It's totally counter intuitive to have some of your best players only on the pitch for around a third of the game, and if you do pile them all on by 55 then you've got issues if injuries subsequently happen.

I tend to agree that it’s a risky strategy against the ABs. You need to be running them hard from the off and keep the pressure on. Take the points when they are on offer and keep the scoreboard ticking over. Frankly any pen just inside the half needs to be considered for 3 points. By not having the strongest players on from the start we are in danger of facing a gap too wide by the time the subs make it one the pitch. Of course if we are in touch, or even in the lead, it could prove a blinder of a decision. Either way im a little confused as to why SB showed his hand so early allowing NZ to select players to counter the threat?

What is clear to me is come game day England are going to need to operate at 100% intensity for 80 minutes. Thats how we turned them over in the World Cup 6 years ago in SA. Bloodied their noses early and shocked the system, not relenting for a second. Along with drowning out the Haka with Swing Low of course.

Finally, I’m loving “the Pom Squad”.

 

[Scotty]

I think SB is explicitly looking to do exactly that - be in it with 25 to go and then ask the Pom Squad to seal the deal.

It's totally counter intuitive to have some of your best players only on the pitch for around a third of the game, and if you do pile them all on by 55 then you've got issues if injuries subsequently happen.

That front row will be solid but not cause many issues for NZ in attack for the first half but the impact of Genge LCD and Stuart is a good impact and not any real loss at scrum time.

CCS Curry Pollock, For Coles, Underhill and Pepper. Also is not really a loss but can bring impact.

You normally make changes around 60 min anyway. So not a huge risk. But the benefit of 6 impact forwards on at once could be a huge boost for the last 25 - 30 min.

 

[BPM]

I tend to agree that it's a risky strategy against the ABs. You need to be running them hard from the off and keep the pressure on. Take the points when they are on offer and keep the scoreboard ticking over. Frankly any pen just inside the half needs to be considered for 3 points. By not having the strongest players on from the start we are in danger of facing a gap too wide by the time the subs make it one the pitch. Of course if we are in touch, or even in the lead, it could prove a blinder of a decision. Either way im a little confused as to why SB showed his hand so early allowing NZ to select players to counter the threat?

What is clear to me is come game day England are going to need to operate at 100% intensity for 80 minutes. Thats how we turned them over in the World Cup 6 years ago in SA. Bloodied their noses early and shocked the system, not relenting for a second. Along with drowning out the Haka with Swing Low of course.

Finally, I'm loving "the Pom Squad".

In principal I agree, but I don’t think they’ve adjusted their 23 in any way as a result.

What would be interesting is if they’re looking at the 23 we’ve selected and prepared in a certain way on our assumed gameplan i.e. focused on the high ball all week but then when it comes to it, we play very differently.

BTW, I fully expect a lot of kicking but it’s fun to think we might be throwing out some red herrings.

 

[Geordie]

As he has been for at least 6 years (may be closer to 10).

Not remotely, in fact, it's to be expected, and entirely un-newsworthy.

But there's a hge difference between training in a position to cover an injury, yellow card, or simply noticing that the SH is stuck at the bottom of a ruck, than starting them there in an international (see also Earl at centre, Steward at IC etc etc).

I've long been a fan of French-style SH/FH combinations, and have said with reasonable frequency that Ford (and Marcus Smith, and Kyle Eastmond, and Ryan Lamb, and...) could have been excellent at that - had they been playing SH from U16s. SH is probably the most instinctive position on the pitch, and needs to be grooved with lots of game time there.
The SH/FH combos are essentially all SHs who learned FH play play, or have been playing both from a very young age. I can't think of a single FH who then learnt SH play to the standard of starting a PRC-level match there during an injury crisis.


Really not.

I'm criticising press and fans going from "Ford trained at SH for one session" and going straight to "Ford is expected to start at SH for England"
And I criticise England for STARTING a test match with players in a position that they haven't played enough to properly find their groove there - when it means leaving out a different player who would be a better option in that position (eg dropping Lawrence or Furbank in order to allow Freeman or MSmith to START a test match in a position they've barely played in before) - because that experimentation should be coming at club level, or as part of position shuffling when the bench comes on - until such point in time that the player has played that position enough to be considered "grooved" there.

None of which is a criticism of running training scenarios, or even complete sessions, with players out of their comfort zones.

I dont recall either of Earl or Steward starting in those positions for England.
Freeman on the other hand has played numerous games for club in this position. Around 13 starts in one season i believe?

As to Freeman starting a 13 over Lawrence, this has clearly come about as theres something about Lawrences game they just arent happy with.
Many rugby analysts have suggested its a defensive issue in the 13 channel, with him often standing at 12 on defence (with Slade at 13) and vice versa on attack. The fact he was bounced off Tuisova twice in just one carry against Fiji will not have gone unnoticed (though he wasnt the only one in fairness)

They seem to have more confidence in that area with Freeman. and i suspect SB will be looking for a 12 Atkinson, 13, Freeman midfield maybe even for the 6n...but certainly going forward from there.

Lawrence will do much, with a BIG performance this weekend in and attack and particularly in defensive.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think SB is explicitly looking to do exactly that - be in it with 25 to go and then ask the Pom Squad to seal the deal.

It's totally counter intuitive to have some of your best players only on the pitch for around a third of the game, and if you do pile them all on by 55 then you've got issues if injuries subsequently happen.

Tbf one of our best periods of rugby performance under Jones tried heavily on a bench that could come on and have a real impact. It put pressure on teams to try to get ahead before that point. When we had a brief period where we added being and to frequently score a try within the first few minutes, it added plenty of pressure to teams.

Obviously if you weaken the steering team to achieve it and end up behind, it defeats the point.

 

[Saintjay]

Not sure about the 'Pom Squad' tag. Seems like we're 6 years behind the idea. Without the two world class front rows starting and finishing the match.

Like a Temu Rassie.

 

[Jimbo]

It’s a balance if you think your subs are more of a ball in hand threat and can expose tired legs in the last 25 great, however the counter is have the starters done enough to create said tired legs, I do think England have lost in the final quarter fairly consistantly against NZ in recent years so you can’t blame SB for employing tactics to try and flip that trend.

 

[Jimbo]

No issue with hybrid players if there good enough to do it.

More of an issue when it's because your selections and bench split is wrong. Your following everyone else and it's the trend in rugby. Reproducing others tactics rather than innovating your own.

The bigger question becomes are these hybrid player a bi product of our systems at age grade and grass roots, would Earl and Sam (forget his surname was part of Exe setup) have been playing centre in other setups and not in the row, Englands inability to produce multiple quality ball carrying 12s seems beyond coincidence at this point.

 

[Which Tyler]

I dont recall either of Earl or Steward starting in those positions for England.
Freeman on the other hand has played numerous games for club in this position. Around 13 starts in one season i believe?

I don't recall George Ford starting at SH for England.
Which hasn't stopped people talking about Earl or Steward starting tests for England, or Ford starting tests at SH.

Which is where you jumped in.

As to Freeman starting a 13 over Lawrence, this has clearly come about as theres something about Lawrences game they just arent happy with.
Many rugby analysts have suggested its a defensive issue in the 13 channel, with him often standing at 12 on defence (with Slade at 13) and vice versa on attack. The fact he was bounced off Tuisova twice in just one carry against Fiji will not have gone unnoticed (though he wasnt the only one in fairness)

They seem to have more confidence in that area with Freeman. and i suspect SB will be looking for a 12 Atkinson, 13, Freeman midfield maybe even for the 6n...but certainly going forward from there.

Lawrence will do much, with a BIG performance this weekend in and attack and particularly in defensive.

Which is all a conversation for 2 weeks ago.
Press speculate about Lawrence's issues at 13 for England, based on... nothing at all; just that Borthwick wanted Lawrence AND Slade in the same team, and wants to experiment with Freeman at OC - on which I have the same requirements as I do for any other player to play out of position (I believe it's called "consistency of thought").
btw, his 13 starts at OC, are "ever", not "one season"

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

The bigger question becomes are these hybrid player a bi product of our systems at age grade and grass roots, would Earl and Sam (forget his surname was part of Exe setup) have been playing centre in other setups and not in the row, Englands inability to produce multiple quality ball carrying 12s seems beyond coincidence at this point.

Simmonds.

Thing is they’re badged hybrid players, but they’re not really. They’re specialist back rowers who have some of the traits required in certain backs positions, but far from all. For 15 or 20 minutes you might get away with it but for 60 minutes it’s odds on that you would see the limitations of Earl at 12 or Pollock on the wing. The perverse part of me almost wants to see this happen one day just to see how it pans out.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Simmonds.

Thing is they're badged hybrid players, but they're not really. They're specialist back rowers who have some of the traits required in certain backs positions, but far from all. For 15 or 20 minutes you might get away with it but for 60 minutes it's odds on that you would see the limitations of Earl at 12 or Pollock on the wing. The perverse part of me almost wants to see this happen one day just to see how it pans out.

I'll never forget the Italy experiment with bergamasco at scrum half. I felt sorry for the guy, he was absolutely useless.

 

[IT157]

Go to day Jimbo it's starting to sound a lot like making excuses ahead of time rather than being negative. You get injuries in rugby, and that sometimes means you don't have your best people where you'd like em, but teams that want to lift a WC, or Grand Slam, need to adept and overcome. Even with the areas of weakness I still expect this England team to perform. There are no excuses for me, and I'm sure there won't be for them in camp. England are fielding some genuine superstars: Earl, IFW, CCS, Itoje, Pollock, Curry, Underhill. Ford is a seasoned and top quality 10, Mitchell has to be up there in world rankings for 9. I'd even argue OL is up there for centres. Roebuck has shown some real promise. These lads can, and should, win come Saturday. If they don't it will be right to wonder why.

Glad you know who Roebuck is now.